Why 30's ad?

[hjalti]

The singular form in 9:27 does not correspond to the plural form in 9:24-26, in 2 different ways: one letter goes missing from שבוע to שבע and the plural indication is irregular.

Again, Bernard, learn something about Hebrew. You wouldn't make such blunders. I've already given you one example of this precise issue with the word for "day": singular is YWM, plural YMYM. Another example, "sign": singular )WT, plural )TWT [")" = alef], or "ass": XMWR, XMRYM. Would you like a few dozen more? I also explained the irregular plural due to Aramaic influence. You seem to ignore lots of things that people say to you

I haven't reached the chapter on numerals yet in my Hebrew grammar (it's in the last chapter), so I haven't chimed in yet.

But Bernard, you clearly haven't studied Hebrew at all. Common nouns like "day" (which spin already pointed out) , "city" and "house" have a "missing letter" in the plural. That a novice like me knows this but not you indicates to me that you don't know what you're talking about.

[Bernard Muller]

to hjalti,

The "weeks/sevens" in Da 9:24-26 is, in Hebrew, שבעים

In the old testament, outside "Daniel", there are nine occurrences of "weeks".
In Deu 16:9b, 10 & 16, 2 Ch 8:13 & Jer 5:24, "weeks" is spelled שבעות.
In Deu 16:9a, Num 28:26 & Ex 34:22, "weeks" is spelled שבעת.
In Lev 12:5, we have also שבעים but all the translations I read indicate that means "2 weeks", even in the Hebrew for "two" is not appearing in the text. Google translate indicated שבועיים for "two weeks".

This is not as it is in Da 9:24-26: שבעים
In Da 9:24-26 "weeks" spelling for a quantity larger than 2 is unique in Hebrew literature.
Essentially, the word in Da 9:24-26 is oddball and can certainly be understood as a fabricated plural of seven (שבע in Hebrew).

Looking at "week" in the old testament, there are 4 occurrences of it:
In Gen 29:27 & 28, it is שבע, just like for "seven".
In Da 9:27, it is שבוע twice. That appears to be the normal translation for "week" in Hebrew.

Other words declination can be different from each other, such as the case for "days".

Draw your conclusions.

Cordially, Bernard

[spin]

Hi spin,

FFS, Bernard, that one week is the seventieth. Will you never get that into your little head?? You have certainly built a hedge around your sevens nonsense. It's so you can ignore reality.

You are the one avoiding the reality, that is how "week" is spelled in the Hebrew.
About that week meaning seven years, from Onias III being cut off to the restoration, according to the context of the verses, it has to start when Antiochus is in Jerusalem in 167 BC, years after Onias III has been cut off. So good bye to that week meaning 7 years. Or is it another inaccuracy?
" ... the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate." (Da 9:26-27 KJV)

Menelaus was made high priest around 171 and it was he that instigated the death of Onias III. When Menelaus was installed the Antiochus also installed a garrison of Cypriot soldiers in Jerusalem. That's the start of the last week. Halfway through the week sacrifice is stopped and the abomination is installed.

There is no plural of seven.

That means "Daniel" invented that plural for his scheme.

Baloney, Bernard. You cannot make such absurd assumptions based on silence.

It is not the normal plural of "week" either.

I have already indicated that it is not a normal plural, but as I said, it is a text that is influenced by Aramaic, and there may be interference from Aramaic that explains the plural form. Go back and check the quote I supplied.

Get it? 70 = 7 + 62 + 1. The last week is the same item as one of the seven or sixty-two weeks.

At the start of Da 9:26, we are already in the year following the one indicated by "62 sevens". So we are in the year indicated by "70 sevens" already. For you that "week" is 7 years and 62 "weeks" is 434 years, which does not make any sense.

Without having anything to say, you run back to the accuracy fudge. You haven't dealt with the last week missing from the 70. He mentions seven weeks (a jubilee) and sixty-two weeks, then he mentions one week, but you want to ignore that and change what the writer is saying to fit your presuppositions. YUp, more eisegesis from you.

And as we know the writers are extremely inaccurate about earlier times, so inaccuracy is only to be expected about earlier times. You just hope against reality that the seventy weeks is accurate.

Gosh, what was preventing educated Jews to know when Cyrus the Great vanquished Babylon and allowed captive Jews to return to Jerusalem. Do you think no record was kept for that very important event (from a Jewish perspective) and the year in question was not transmitted from generation to the next? I do not think it had to be a well kept secret.

What preventing educated Jews from knowing that Darius was a Persian or that Sheshbazzar was never a king or that he was not the son of Nebuchadnezzar? Showing that there is knowledge of some information from the period doesn't change the fact that there are several blunders. The text is clearly not accurate. You can hope and pray that the apologists are right or you can come back to the real world and be reasonable.

I think you are trying to score some points about accuracy/inaccuracy. Have you seen the film "The Number 23"? It is about (number) obsession.

Yes, I can say your theory is totally absurd due to the math.

You mean that piece of necromancy about sevens you pretend is reasonable??

Inaccuracy should not be used as a word in order to explain the huge gap between Cyrus' decree and Antiochus IV second foray in Jerusalem, between the historical data (372 years) and your math (483 to 490) (+- 1 year). You think it is just a small inconsequential detail, an inaccuracy. I disagree strongly.
Do you know of any scholar who have the same position than yours on this matter?

Check out the scholarly commentaries. It is the status quo.

I've already given you one example of this precise issue with the word for "day": singular is YWM, plural YMYM. Another example, "sign": singular )WT, plural )TWT [")" = alef], or "ass": XMWR, XMRYM. Would you like a few dozen more? I also explained the irregular plural due to Aramaic influence. You seem to ignore lots of things that people say to you.

Ya, these different forms can be seen in all kind of Hebrew texts. But what makes "weeks/sevens" form in Da 9:24-26 so special is it appears only here in Hebrew texts.

Shit, Bernard, you just didn't understand the issue at all! But what can we expect? The singular form שבוע loses the waw in the plural form, just like so many other nouns that have a vocalic waw. The thing that seems to have you stumped most is that rather than a feminine plural it has a masculine one instead. Not strangely the word in Aramaic has a masculine suffix.

The end of the 70 years is indicated as the end of the desolator. That is years after 167.

That's because you interpret the last week as being 7 years. You know I do not agree with that: here "week" is week.
Actually the end of your 70 years is not indicative of the end of the desolator (Da 9:27). All what the text says is that end will come some time after the cessation of the sacrifices. No mention of restoration.

In the last half week, the abomination is set up and will remain "until the end is poured out upon the desolator" (NRSV), "...out on him [the ruler]" (NIV), "...out on the one who makes desolate" (NASB), "...out on the desolator" (ISV), "...on the desolate one" (YLT). I think it is extremely hard to woym out of that one, Bernard.

I never claimed that the writer of Dan 9 said the end would involve the restoration. You just made that up. I said that this writer was dealing with the same notions as the writers of the other visions and work in the same time. One of those visions, Dan 8, specifically talks of the restoration as the end (v14). As they are treating the same topics it is reasonable to conclude that the end for each is also related.

Once again we are left with the same Bernard errors:
1. There is no example of seven being used in the Hebrew bible. The singular of the term in question as seen in Dan 9:27 is clearly "week", not "seven". Your attempt to use literal "sevens" is unjustified and is hilarious in contortedness.
2. You've totally messed up the grammar in your analysis of Dan 9:25.
3. Your fudged chronological explanation of the seventy weeks is wrong by a few years.
4. Your sources are not scholarly, but apologetic.
5. You try to explain Hebrew when you don't have any familiarity with the language.

[Bernard Muller]

to DCH,

There is a reason why pseudepigraphical books (books written in the name of some legendary person of long past times) use cryptic language. They are trying to "explain" how the work (or sources supposedly collected) had been so long unknown: the significance of the cryptic language was only apparent in the times when the book was first circulated (that is, when it was actually written).

Yes, I agree with that. I think the meaning of the cryptic "sevens" in Da 9:24-25 was understood when the book was published, possibly as "discovered" by the anonymous author.
Then when the End did not happen before Antiochus IV's death, the book was probably discredited & retired for years to resurface later during some new catastrophic situations and to offer badly needed hope. By that time, the meaning of the "sevens" was likely forsaken or/and forgotten, but with some fudging these "sevens" were made to forecast the End in the near future.
That's my 2 cents.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

Hi spin,

Menelaus was made high priest around 171 and it was he that instigated the death of Onias III. When Menelaus was installed the Antiochus also installed a garrison of Cypriot soldiers in Jerusalem. That's the start of the last week. Halfway through the week sacrifice is stopped and the abomination is installed.

The point I was making is that Onias III's killing is not the start of the final week. The final week starts when Antiochus IV is in Jerusalem for the second time.

Baloney, Bernard. You cannot make such absurd assumptions based on silence.

Why not, that's what it looks.

there may be interference

So you are not certain! A supposition?

You haven't dealt with the last week missing from the 70.

I have dealt with the so-called missing week several times. Read my posts.

What preventing educated Jews from knowing that Darius was a Persian or that Sheshbazzar was never a king or that he was not the son of Nebuchadnezzar? Showing that there is knowledge of some information from the period doesn't change the fact that there are several blunders. The text is clearly not accurate. You can hope and pray that the apologists are right or you can come back to the real world and be reasonable.

Do you think an educated Englisman would know who were the kings of France around 1500-1600? Without googling, of course!
But for Jews in 170-164, the temple was paramount in their mind and for the educated religious ones, it is most likely they knew about the basics of what happened to their temple and when.

You mean that piece of necromancy about sevens you pretend is reasonable??

More than reasonable: it works.

Check out the scholarly commentaries. It is the status quo.

Can you post them, or indicate their websites? Can you at least indicate the author's names and pertinent book titles?

The singular form שבוע loses the waw in the plural form, just like so many other nouns that have a vocalic waw.

Not all the times, according to my review of "weeks" occurrences in the Hebrew bible.

The thing that seems to have you stumped most is that rather than a feminine plural it has a masculine one instead. Not strangely the word in Aramaic has a masculine suffix.

Archer was not wrong after all!
[according to the 'Encyclopedia of BIBLE DIFFICULTIES', Gleason L.Archer:
"the word for "week" is sabu, which is derived from seba, the word for "seven". Its normal plural is feminine in form: s_buot. Only in this chapter of Daniel does it appears in the masculine plural sabuim ..."
Still, Aramaic or not, that form of plural is absent in Hebrew literature, except in 'Daniel' of course. And our author does not look to be deficient in the Hebrew language.

In the last half week, the abomination is set up and will remain "until the end is poured out upon the desolator" (NRSV), "...out on him [the ruler]" (NIV), "...out on the one who makes desolate" (NASB), "...out on the desolator" (ISV), "...on the desolate one" (YLT). I think it is extremely hard to woym out of that one, Bernard.

In Da 9:27, there is nothing to say that the end of the desolator will happen within the last half week. That was my point, still is.

One of those visions, Dan 8, specifically talks of the restoration as the end (v14)

I treat that as an "updating" interpolation. One reason is in Da 9:27 the author is ignorant of any (very paramount) rededication of the temple between the interruption of the sacrifices and the end of Antiochus IV.

As they are treating the same topics it is reasonable to conclude that the end for each is also related.

Answered above.

The rest is just propaganda against me and my case. Anyway, I'll comment on it:

1. There is no example of sevens being used in the Hebrew bible. The singular of the term in question as seen in Dan 9:27 is clearly "week", not "seven". Your attempt to use literal "sevens" is unjustified and is hilarious in contortedness.

That would not prevent "Daniel" to be innovative and create a new word. After all, prophecies (even alleged) have elements of mystery and ambivalence. And where is in the Hebrew bible שבעים meaning weeks of years, that is 7 years?

2. You've totally messed up the grammar in your analysis of Dan 9:25.

I do not see how. Your number of years does not match your understood grammar and meaning of Dan 9:25. The 49 years leading to Jeshua's arrival or anointment is unevidenced. Your 62 weeks overshoots 167 BC by more than a century.

3. Your fudged chronological explanation of the seventy weeks is wrong by a few years.

No it is not, it is dead on. Again, it is because you interpret "week" as being 7 years.

4. Your sources are not scholarly, but apologetic.

Whatever are my sources, my conclusion is that the 70 sevens brings me to 167 BC, not to Jesus' times. That's not being apologetic. Furthermore, you are quick to call my sources 'apologetic' when they are against your case. Anything against your mathematically flawed theory is apologetic. And "weeks of years" is what apologists used. You do, I don't.

5. You try to explain Hebrew when you don't have any familiarity with the language.

What is your familiarity with the Hebrew language? You talk like you are an expert: Are you?

Cordially, Bernard

[spin]

Hi spin,

Menelaus was made high priest around 171 and it was he that instigated the death of Onias III. When Menelaus was installed the Antiochus also installed a garrison of Cypriot soldiers in Jerusalem. That's the start of the last week. Halfway through the week sacrifice is stopped and the abomination is installed.

The point I was making is that Onias III's killing is not the start of the final week. The final week starts when Antiochus IV is in Jerusalem for the second time.

The first sentence is correct. The second is false. Dan 9:26 doesn't talk of "the prince" but "the troops [literally, people] of the prince". These are the Cypriot troops installed for Menelaus.

That means "Daniel" invented that plural for his scheme.

Baloney, Bernard. You cannot make such absurd assumptions based on silence.

Why not, that's what it looks.

Based merely on the fact that Dan 9 features the plural of "week" as a masculine, you haven't got a clue who invented that plural. You are just talking pure nonsense. You know nothing about the writer's speech community, so don't waste response time with such unfalsifiable assertions.

there may be interference

So you are not certain! A supposition?

I don't need to be certain. You are the fool saying things that you cannot support. I just need to show how you can be mistaken.

You haven't dealt with the last week missing from the 70.

I have dealt with the so-called missing week several times. Read my posts.

No, you haven't. You have bullshitted your way making claims that eliminate the only possibility of the seventieth week to be specified.

If you would like to disagree with me here, all you need do is to show where the writer talks specifically about the one remaining week. After talking about the seven weeks and the sixty-two weeks, that leaves one week, which is apparently mentioned in 9:27. Why is that one week not the last of the seventy?

What preventing educated Jews from knowing that Darius was a Persian or that Sheshbazzar was never a king or that he was not the son of Nebuchadnezzar? Showing that there is knowledge of some information from the period doesn't change the fact that there are several blunders. The text is clearly not accurate. You can hope and pray that the apologists are right or you can come back to the real world and be reasonable.

Do you think an educated Englisman would know who were the kings of France around 1500-1600? Without googling, of course!
But for Jews in 170-164, the temple was paramount in their mind and for the educated religious ones, it is most likely they knew about the basics of what happened to their temple and when.

The basics of what happened and a ballpark indication of when. If you consult the Jewish work known as the Seder Olam Rabbah you'll find that its writers thought the Persian period was only 52 years long.

You mean that piece of necromancy about sevens you pretend is reasonable??

More than reasonable: it works.

Even with the trickery it is wrong by a few years. As I said miss by an inch, miss by a mile.

Check out the scholarly commentaries. It is the status quo.

Can you post them, or indicate their websites? Can you at least indicate the author's names and pertinent book titles?

Just go to a library or bookshop. One of the best is that of J.J. Collins (Daniel (Hermeneia: A Critical & Historical Commentary on the Bible), Fortress 1994). There are several others. I had good library access at that stage.

The singular form שבוע loses the waw in the plural form, just like so many other nouns that have a vocalic waw.

Not all the times, according to my review of "weeks" occurrences in the Hebrew bible.

Just check the pointing.

The thing that seems to have you stumped most is that rather than a feminine plural it has a masculine one instead. Not strangely the word in Aramaic has a masculine suffix.

Archer was not wrong after all!

An apologist can know things. It's just that it is hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. That's your problem. That's why you should get a scholarly grammar. You are less likely to talk nonsense.

[according to the 'Encyclopedia of BIBLE DIFFICULTIES', Gleason L.Archer:
"the word for "week" is sabu, which is derived from seba, the word for "seven". Its normal plural is feminine in form: s_buot. Only in this chapter of Daniel does it appears in the masculine plural sabuim ..."
Still, Aramaic or not, that form of plural is absent in Hebrew literature, except in 'Daniel' of course. And our author does not look to be deficient in the Hebrew language.

Our only guide to Hebrew is what we have in the Hebrew bible. It is not sufficient to allow you to make comments about the range of Hebrew variation available at the time. One of the good things about the Dead Sea Scrolls is that they reveal indications of a few different dialects of Hebrew and examples of Hebrew heavily influenced by Aramaic. In The Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Elisha Qimron, Harvard 1986 p.67, the writer states regarding Qumran Hebrew, "The masculine plural suffix ־ים is sometimes added to feminine nouns". Such changes to the plural indicator are known regarding the "Qumran" dialect. Forget the crazy theory that Daniel invented this feminine noun with masculine plural suffix.

In the last half week, the abomination is set up and will remain "until the end is poured out upon the desolator" (NRSV), "...out on him [the ruler]" (NIV), "...out on the one who makes desolate" (NASB), "...out on the desolator" (ISV), "...on the desolate one" (YLT). I think it is extremely hard to woym out of that one, Bernard.

In Da 9:27, there is nothing to say that the end of the desolator will happen within the last half week. That was my point, still is.

And you are still wrong. "He shall make sacrifice and oblation cease" for half a week. The end of that half week specifically points to the restart of sacrifice, ie the restoration.

One of those visions, Dan 8, specifically talks of the restoration as the end (v14)

I treat that as an "updating" interpolation.

You can treat it however you like, but I see no evidence for you. It reeks of more of your eisegesis.

One reason is in Da 9:27 the author is ignorant of any (very paramount) rededication of the temple between the interruption of the sacrifices and the end of Antiochus IV.

You are not paying attention again. It was not written after the rededication. It was written beforehand. It was written when the recapture of Jerusalem was a real possibility. I have said that a number of times. That's why I have mentioned Emmaus now several times, because it is the marker when the real possibility of victory was first seen.

As they are treating the same topics it is reasonable to conclude that the end for each is also related.

Answered above.

That you've made a few assertions doesn't supply reason.

The rest is just propaganda against me and my case. Anyway, I'll comment on it:

1. There is no example of sevens being used in the Hebrew bible. The singular of the term in question as seen in Dan 9:27 is clearly "week", not "seven". Your attempt to use literal "sevens" is unjustified and is hilarious in contortedness.

That would not prevent "Daniel" to be innovative and create a new word. After all, prophecies (even alleged) have elements of mystery and ambivalence. And where is in the Hebrew bible שבעים meaning weeks of years, that is 7 years?

So now you are hoping that the Daniel writer invented language forms. Scratch that one for lack of seriousness.

The Hebrew bible talks of sabbaths of years (Lev 25:8). Seven sabbaths of years is 49 years. Here that sabbath equates to a week. The idea is not strange.

2. You've totally messed up the grammar in your analysis of Dan 9:25.

I do not see how. Your number of years does not match your understood grammar and meaning of Dan 9:25. The 49 years leading to Jeshua's arrival or anointment is unevidenced. Your 62 weeks overshoots 167 BC by more than a century.

You respond here with the one drone, the years must be accurate, when you know that the writer is far from accurate and your fudge is out by a few years.

3. Your fudged chronological explanation of the seventy weeks is wrong by a few years.

No it is not, it is dead one. Again, it is because you interpret "week" as being 7 years.

You have failed to say why this last week is different from all the other 69. It is a group of seven item, usually seven days, but clearly here of something else, which seems to be years. One thing is certain, the term is not the number seven as a number. This idea is a modern notion of yours retrojected into the past. You made it up and it is absurd to think that some Hebrew constructed a huge table filled with words to describe years and then counted every number seven.

4. Your sources are not scholarly, but apologetic.

Whatever are my sources, my conclusion is that the 70 sevens brings me to 167 BC, not to Jesus' times. That's not being apologetic. Furthermore, you are quick to call my sources 'apologetic' when they are against your case. Anything against your mathematically flawed theory is apologetic. And "weeks of years" is what apologists used. You do, I don't.

You defend your erroneous conclusion with apologetic sources. It doesn't help you. If you used scholarly sources you might learn something about what you are trying to deal with.

5. You try to explain Hebrew when you don't have any familiarity with the language.

What is your familiarity with the Hebrew language? You talk like you are an expert: Are you?

I'm the one pointing out what you don't know and you have no response other than to weasel. All you need do is cite a scholarly source that supports you. But we both know you can't. You are stuck with apologetics from Zondervan press, people whose aim was to transform Dan 9 into a prophecy about Jesus. You then try to reconcile the basic fact that Dan 9 deals with Antiochus to the basic christian understanding of the text and come out with the harebrained idea of literally counting sevens, when the text doesn't support your theory, as it talks about weeks, not sevens, as the seventieth week indicates.

You haven't succeeded in obfuscating your failings. Your analysis of Dan 9:25 does not make sense, though the christian apologists agree with you. I've shown how it is grammatically wrong and given you a strict parallel that should force you to change your view, if you read it. Your sevens theory doesn't quite fit the facts, so you adjust the facts to fit your theory.

As to Hebrew, you need to know something about it to understand when someone is trying to bullshit you. Stick to Archer and you'll never know.

[Bernard Muller]

to spin,

Dan 9:26 doesn't talk of "the prince" but "the troops [literally, people] of the prince". These are the Cypriot troops installed for Menelaus.

And what would be the reference for these Cypriot troops in Jerusalem, prior to Antiochus' second foray? Certainly not in 1 or 2 Maccabees. And, as usual, you do not reveal your sources.
Furthermore "installed" is not the same than "destroy the city and the sanctuary". The later (exaggerated) was done by Antiochus' troops while in Jerusalem. Next is the RSV translation:
" ...and the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. ..." Da 9:26

Based merely on the fact that Dan 9 features the plural of "week" as a masculine, you haven't got a clue who invented that plural.

Yes, I do: the author of that part of 'Daniel'.

You know nothing about the writer's speech community,

But you know enough about that community to translate that plural of "week" as 7 years!

If you would like to disagree with me here, all you need do is to show where the writer talks specifically about the one remaining week.

I do not have to. The events in Da 9:26-27a are happening "after sixty-two "weeks/sevens"" year, that is in the "seventy "weeks/sevens"" year.

Why is that one week not the last of the seventy?

Your "week" starts when Antiochus is in Jerusalem (167 BC): " ... And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.
The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined.
Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week;
But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering ..." (Da 9:26b-27b)
That last "week" of yours has to start in 167 BC according to the verses above, not in 171 BC according to you (when Onias III got killed). You then have 3 to 4 years not part of any of your last two "weeks". Explain that.

If you consult the Jewish work known as the Seder Olam Rabbah you'll find that its writers thought the Persian period was only 52 years long.

But next, the text says: "This is the only acceptable date according to the method of the Tanna".

Even with the trickery it is wrong by a few years.

How many times I would have to tell you that my seventy "sevens" brings me exactly to 167 BC, the year of Jason being cut off, Antiochus' second foray in Jerusalem and massacres of many Jews? (Da 9:25-26)

"The masculine plural suffix ־ים is sometimes added to feminine nouns".

Does the "sometimes" include the plural for "week" in Qumran Hebrew literature? That's the question. Anyway the mix of feminine noun with masculine suffix for plural is the exception, not the rule.

"He shall make sacrifice and oblation cease" for half a week. The end of that half week specifically points to the restart of sacrifice, ie the restoration.

Translations vary: "for half a week" is often translated as "in the midst of the week" or similar.
As we know, neither "for" or "in" is in the Hebrew text.
BTW in "He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering." Da 9:27, the verb (in bold) is in the imperfect, which "expresses an action, process or condition which is incomplete" (BLB). If so, that would eliminate "for" and your terminus ad quem as the (even anticipated) rededication of the temple. In other words, the author then did not know exactly when & if any rededication will happen, except the desolation would still be here when the desolator (Antiochus IV) is terminated (Da 9:27). Once again, there is no mention of (even a future) restoration of the temple in Da 9:27.

Bernard Muller wrote:

One of those visions, Dan 8, specifically talks of the restoration as the end (v14)

I treat that as an "updating" interpolation.

You can treat it however you like, but I see no evidence for you. It reeks of more of your eisegesis.

In Da 8:14, "Daniel" indicated a number of days for the desolation of the temple. He would not have done that if he was not certain about it. And the events were during the lifetime of "Daniel". Therefore Da 8:13 & 14 were written after the restoration. Furthermore there is no hint of restoration in Da 9:27, as I mentioned several times in my posts.

Bernard Muller wrote:
One reason is in Da 9:27 the author is ignorant of any (very paramount) rededication of the temple between the interruption of the sacrifices and the end of Antiochus IV.

You are not paying attention again. It was not written after the rededication. It was written beforehand. It was written when the recapture of Jerusalem was a real possibility. I have said that a number of times. That's why I have mentioned Emmaus now several times, because it is the marker when the real possibility of victory was first seen.

It does not matter if you said it zillion of times, that does not make it right. As for the battle of Emmaus, there is no mention, not even a hint about it in the whole book of Daniel. And do not speak to me as if you were my boss or teacher.

Bernard Muller wrote:

As they are treating the same topics it is reasonable to conclude that the end for each is also related.

Answered above.

That you've made a few assertions doesn't supply reason.

I supplied the evidence. What you have for your assertion regarding is "it is reasonable".
BTW you wrote earlier "One of those visions, Dan 8, specifically talks of the restoration as the end (v14)". Well, where did you see the restoration being the end? Since when the restoration becomes the end? The end is described in Da 7:26-28 & Da 12: nothing to do about the restoration.

The Hebrew bible talks of sabbaths of years (Lev 25:8). Seven sabbaths of years is 49 years. Here that sabbath equates to a week. The idea is not strange.

Yes, but the author of Leviticus mentioned "of years". I do not read that in Da 9:24-26. Why did "Daniel" not follow the example of Lev 25:8 if he had periods of seven years in mind?

your fudge is out by a few years.

No fudging, I said that again and again. You claim I missed the mark by two years because you insist most of Daniel was written right after the battle of Emmaus (based on Da 8:14 discussed earlier). There is simply no evidence that battle is hinted in 'Daniel'. But there is evidence that 8:13-14 was written after the restoration (as explained earlier).

You have failed to say why this last week is different from all the other 69.

Read my posts again.

It is a group of seven item, usually seven days, but clearly here of something else, which seems to be years. One thing is certain, the term is not the number seven as a number

Oh, "seems to be years" only? Let's face it, your theory does not work with "weeks of years". Why not "sevens"? It works.

You made it up and it is absurd to think that some Hebrew constructed a huge table filled with words to describe years and then counted every number seven.

Why not? I could. Some Jews then could have done the same. Or, if needed, the anonymous author might have given additional hints verbally, or claimed to have "discovered" the number scheme. Actually, you do not have to tabulate all the numbers, just the one with 7 in them. That's 70 numbers in total.

Your analysis of Dan 9:25 does not make sense, though the christian apologists agree with you.

Gosh
Your analysis does not make sense due to the math. And I do not think apologists would agree about their Messiah, the Prince, being Jason.

I've shown how it is grammatically wrong and given you a strict parallel that should force you to change your view, if you read it.

No, it is not grammatically wrong.
BTW, in RSV "Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, " the words in bold are here to identify the "word" which went forth. It is not meant to be a subject but only an identification for the "word".
But next the RSV has "there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time".
However there was no punctuation in the initial Hebrew, so the colon is the RSV doing. Also "then for" is not in the Hebrew but "and" is in instead. And of course history is against the rebuilding taking 434 years. Not close by a huge margin.
And that's the translation you like.

And your example is not a strict parallel.The context makes the meaning of your example very clear and not confusing: 2 different period of years, and in each period, David was a king ruling from a different city.

Your sevens theory doesn't quite fit the facts, so you adjust the facts to fit your theory.

There is no adjustment: my sevens theory leads me exactly to the year Jason got back in Jerusalem and to the next year, with Jason being cut off, Antiochus' second foray in Jerusalem and massacres of Jews.

Cordially, Bernard

[spin]

to spin,

Dan 9:26 doesn't talk of "the prince" but "the troops [literally, people] of the prince". These are the Cypriot troops installed for Menelaus.

And what would be the reference for these Cypriot troops in Jerusalem, prior to Antiochus' second foray? Certainly not in 1 or 2 Maccabees. And, as usual, you do not reveal your sources.

You might read sources before you discount them. In fact 2 Macc 4:29 specifically indicates the presence of Cypriot troops in Jerusalem at the time of Menelaus and the Seleucid commander Sostrates is mentioned leaving Jerusalem in the hands of the Cypriots' leader, Crates. (It's safer to ask for specific sources before discounting them.)

Furthermore "installed" is not the same than "destroy the city and the sanctuary". The later (exaggerated) was done by Antiochus' troops while in Jerusalem. Next is the RSV translation:
" ...and the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. ..." Da 9:26

We are playing around with silence here. The fact we know was that there was a Seleucid military presence in Jerusalem from the time of Menelaus. Such a presence is never a good sign for public safety.

Based merely on the fact that Dan 9 features the plural of "week" as a masculine, you haven't got a clue who invented that plural.

Yes, I do: the author of that part of 'Daniel'.

So any language you haven't seen before that appears in a text you read must be invented by the writer! What utter absurdity.

You know nothing about the writer's speech community,

But you know enough about that community to translate that plural of "week" as 7 years!

One thing is certain. You have to be totally off your face to believe that a writer with the facilities of a scribe of the second century BCE could have constructed the sort of table in words that your flight of fancy presupposes. Can you tell me how many characters on average each line of your table presupposes and what the widest character line from Qumran is??? You just have no idea how ludicrous this fudge of yours really is. Do you have one reasonable parallel to the sort of construction you present in Arabic numbers??

I have little problem with the notion that the word שבוע could be used to talk of a group of seven years.

If you would like to disagree with me here, all you need do is to show where the writer talks specifically about the one remaining week.

I do not have to. The events in Da 9:26-27a are happening "after sixty-two "weeks/sevens"" year, that is in the "seventy "weeks/sevens"" year.

So you want seven weeks plus sixty-two weeks plus one unstated week, plus one stated week that is not the same as all the other weeks. YOU do understand the notion of coherence, don't you.

Why is that one week not the last of the seventy?

Your "week" starts when Antiochus is in Jerusalem (167 BC): " ... And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.

No, it does not. It starts with the installation of Menelaus along with Seleucid troops, circa 171.

The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined.
Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week;
But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering ..." (Da 9:26b-27b)
That last "week" of yours has to start in 167 BC according to the verses above, not in 171 BC according to you (when Onias III got killed). You then have 3 to 4 years not part of any of your last two "weeks". Explain that.

I can't explain why you are trying to tell me what I have to do.

Half way through the week, 3½ years after 171, sacrifice is stopped. 3½ years later is the expected end.

If you consult the Jewish work known as the Seder Olam Rabbah you'll find that its writers thought the Persian period was only 52 years long.

But next, the text says: "This is the only acceptable date according to the method of the Tanna".

Clearly, you cannot trust the accuracy of the chronology of the Persian period maintained by Jewish sources.

Even with the trickery it is wrong by a few years.

How many times I would have to tell you that my seventy "sevens" brings me exactly to 167 BC, the year of Jason being cut off, Antiochus' second foray in Jerusalem and massacres of many Jews? (Da 9:25-26)

You will continue to repeat the nonsense for quite some time. It will probably take retraining to get you to see reason.

"The masculine plural suffix ־ים is sometimes added to feminine nouns".

Does the "sometimes" include the plural for "week" in Qumran Hebrew literature? That's the question. Anyway the mix of feminine noun with masculine suffix for plural is the exception, not the rule.

The thing is, you cannot make any generalizations based on the plural form, firstly because you have no philological reason to do so, given that at least one Hebrew dialect has shifted certain words from feminine to masculine suffixes, and secondly you have no reason to think that we have anything other a than another example.

"He shall make sacrifice and oblation cease" for half a week. The end of that half week specifically points to the restart of sacrifice, ie the restoration.

Translations vary: "for half a week" is often translated as "in the midst of the week" or similar.

Out of the 121 times חצי is used in the Hebrew bible, how many times can you find it used in the English translation to mean "in the midst of"? From my search there were three in the AV.

As we know, neither "for" or "in" is in the Hebrew text.

Here's the bit you haven't got yet. Things are done differently in Hebrew. That an English equivalent doesn't exist in Hebrew doesn't mean that the same basic idea of duration. However a locative preposition (ב־ B-) does exist, such as in the first verse of Genesis B-Re$YT, "at the beginning". Look at Ps 102:24 (& Jer 17:11) "in the midst of my days", ב־חצי ימי, the word for midst clearly has that preposition. There is no preposition in Dan 9:27, so you end up with the duration, "half the week".

BTW in "He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering." Da 9:27, the verb (in bold) is in the imperfect, which "expresses an action, process or condition which is incomplete" (BLB).

Gosh, I'm glad the BLB can make you an instant expert in Hebrew verb aspects. Once you get the fact that there is a duration provided with "half the week" that helps you understand the scope of the imperfect, ie "half a week".

If so, that would eliminate "for" and your terminus ad quem as the (even anticipated) rededication of the temple. In other words, the author then did not know exactly when & if any rededication will happen, except the desolation would still be here when the desolator (Antiochus IV) is terminated (Da 9:27). Once again, there is no mention of (even a future) restoration of the temple in Da 9:27.

As you proven time and again, you know nothing about Hebrew and that you are unwilling to learn, do you think there is any point now that I have dealt with the bases you use to get here, in wasting time with the erroneous conclusion?

One of those visions, Dan 8, specifically talks of the restoration as the end (v14)

I treat that as an "updating" interpolation.

You can treat it however you like, but I see no evidence for you. It reeks of more of your eisegesis.

In Da 8:14, "Daniel" indicated a number of days for the desolation of the temple. He would not have done that if he was not certain about it.

What, did you ask him??

And the events were during the lifetime of "Daniel". Therefore Da 8:13 & 14 were written after the restoration. Furthermore there is no hint of restoration in Da 9:27, as I mentioned several times in my posts.

So the 1150 days were written after the restoration but the 1239 days (3½ years) was written before. Yeah, sure, Bernard. The other leg plays Jingle Bells.

Bernard Muller wrote:
One reason is in Da 9:27 the author is ignorant of any (very paramount) rededication of the temple between the interruption of the sacrifices and the end of Antiochus IV.

You are not paying attention again. It was not written after the rededication. It was written beforehand. It was written when the recapture of Jerusalem was a real possibility. I have said that a number of times. That's why I have mentioned Emmaus now several times, because it is the marker when the real possibility of victory was first seen.

It does not matter if you said it zillion of times, that does not make it right. As for the battle of Emmaus, there is no mention, not even a hint about it in the whole book of Daniel. And do not speak to me as if you were my boss or teacher.

There is no need to talk about it. It was an event in a long struggle, but one that gave the view that there was an end. It is the end in sight that was important, not Emmaus itself.

But your complaint is obfuscation of your earlier one. You falsely represented my idea. Dan 9 as I understand it was written before the rededication and the discussion of Emmaus made it clear that I understood Dan 9 to have been written before. So, now that we have cleared up your confusion and misrepresentation...

Bernard Muller wrote:

As they are treating the same topics it is reasonable to conclude that the end for each is also related.

Answered above.

That you've made a few assertions doesn't supply reason.

I supplied the evidence. What you have for your assertion regarding is "it is reasonable".
BTW you wrote earlier "One of those visions, Dan 8, specifically talks of the restoration as the end (v14)". Well, where did you see the restoration being the end? Since when the restoration becomes the end? The end is described in Da 7:26-28 & Da 12: nothing to do about the restoration.

Read Dan 7 a little more closely. The attempt to change the times and the law (v25) was an attack on the temple, ie when sacrifices were to be made and the laws governing them. That lasted a time, times, and half a time (dividing of time), usually taken to indicate 3½ years, similar to the half week in 9:27. The disruption of times lasted until they were set right. That was done with the restoration of the temple.

The Hebrew bible talks of sabbaths of years (Lev 25:8). Seven sabbaths of years is 49 years. Here that sabbath equates to a week. The idea is not strange.

Yes, but the author of Leviticus mentioned "of years". I do not read that in Da 9:24-26. Why did "Daniel" not follow the example of Lev 25:8 if he had periods of seven years in mind?

Ask him.

your fudge is out by a few years.

No fudging, I said that again and again. You claim I missed the mark by two years because you insist most of Daniel was written right after the battle of Emmaus (based on Da 8:14 discussed earlier). There is simply no evidence that battle is hinted in 'Daniel'. But there is evidence that 8:13-14 was written after the restoration (as explained earlier).

I never claimed that the writer talked about Emmaus. I wish you would stop making irrelevant claims.

You have failed to say why this last week is different from all the other 69.

Read my posts again.

You failed do it.

It is a group of seven item, usually seven days, but clearly here of something else, which seems to be years. One thing is certain, the term is not the number seven as a number

Oh, "seems to be years" only? Let's face it, your theory does not work with "weeks of years". Why not "sevens"? It works.

I can happily say that your fudge regarding "week" as the numeral seven is simply wrong. "Weeks of years" is quite reasonable given that our time frame is over centuries.

You made it up and it is absurd to think that some Hebrew constructed a huge table filled with words to describe years and then counted every number seven.

Why not? I could.

No, you couldn't. You constructed a large table of Arabic numbers. Try it on papyrus using Hebrew words and a pen and ink. You just haven't thought out the logistics of your harebrained claim at all.

Some Jews then could have done the same. Or, if needed, the anonymous author might have given additional hints verbally, or claimed to have "discovered" the number scheme. Actually, you do not have to tabulate all the numbers, just the one with 7 in them. That's 70 numbers in total.

Your analysis of Dan 9:25 does not make sense, though the christian apologists agree with you.

Gosh
Your analysis does not make sense due to the math. And I do not think apologists would agree about their Messiah, the Prince, being Jason.

I didn't say you were an apologist. I said that you used apologist sources. Get the difference? You make your blunders going off in your own direction from rubbish.

I've shown how it is grammatically wrong and given you a strict parallel that should force you to change your view, if you read it.

No, it is not grammatically wrong.

Contrarily, I have shown in this post that the analysis I gave you is grammatically correct. You cannot do the same.

BTW, in RSV "Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, " the words in bold are here to identify the "word" which went forth. It is not meant to be a subject but only an identification for the "word".
But next the RSV has "there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time".
However there was no punctuation in the initial Hebrew, so the colon is the RSV doing. Also "then for" is not in the Hebrew but "and" is in instead. And of course history is against the rebuilding taking 434 years. Not close by a huge margin.
And that's the translation you like.

You are still trying to shove Hebrew into your understanding of English. You talk of punctuation but don't understand the use of the waw. A waw, as I have said numerous times, is necessary to link the clause after the sixty-two weeks in 9:25 to what came before. You cannot comprehend the problem. This is because you willfully know nothing about Hebrew.

And your example is not a strict parallel.The context makes the meaning of your example very clear and not confusing: 2 different period of years, and in each period, David was a king ruling from a different city.

You seem to be so confused would you like someone to hold your hand? In 1 Chr 3:4 there are two clauses separated by two lengths of time:

1 Chr 3:4	Dan 9:25
ו׃ימלך־שם and he reigned there	מן מצא דבר להשיב ולבנות ירושלם עד־משיח נגיד from the going out of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem to anointed prince
שבע שנים ו׃ששה חדשים seven years and six months	שבעים שבעה seven weeks
ו׃שלשים ו׃שלוש שנה and thirty-three years	ושבעים ששים ושנים and sixty-two weeks
מלך ב׃ירושלם he reigned in Jerusalem	תשוב ונבנתה רחוב וחרוץ it was restored and rebuilt street and trench

The two are strictly analogous in structure. The first clause ends with a duration and the second starts with one. In each case that second duration has a waw before it to link the clause to what came before.

Your sevens theory doesn't quite fit the facts, so you adjust the facts to fit your theory.

There is no adjustment: my sevens theory leads me exactly to the year Jason got back in Jerusalem and to the next year, with Jason being cut off, Antiochus' second foray in Jerusalem and massacres of Jews.

The text says nothing about Jason. That is your invention. It talks about an anointed one who was cut off. Jason ended up wafting over to Greece. Jason ruled the Greek influence which was so abhorrent to traditional Jews, of which the Daniel writers include themselves. Jason is irrelevant to the text. The text talks about the end, about the restoration or implies it with the end of the half week it lasted.

Sorry, you have gone backwards here. You have failed on all fronts to deal with the grammar, to justify your weird understanding of "week", to use scholarly sources... Too bad. A good set of Hebrew text books might help. Refusal to use such works only underlines your desire to stay unlearned in the language you pretend to analyze.

Why don't you invite a scholar to critique your theory of sevens? That would be fun.

[John T]

@Kris,

I think you answer is indeed found in the DSS.

The Essenes were expecting the Son of Man in the 1st century.

The Essenes looked for the coming of the Son of Man to restore all things during a special Jubilee. This special Jubilee would occur in the first week of the Jubilee that follows the nine Jubilees.

“And the Day of Atonement is the end of the tenth Jubilee, when all the Sons of Light and the men of the lot of Melchizedek will be atoned for. ….” The Heavenly Prince Melchizedek (IIQ13).

I found that in "The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English" by Geza Vermes, pg 501.

Also this, which is not a word for word translation:

"This is the day of salvation concerning which God spoke through Isaiah the prophet, who said; beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of the messenger who proclaims peace, who brings good news, who proclaims salvation, who says to Zion: Your ELOHIM reigns [Isaiah 52:7]. Its interpretation; the mountains are the prophets…and the messenger is the Anointed one of the spirit, concern whom Daniel said, [Until an anointed one, Dan 9:25)].”…The Heavenly Prince Melchizedek (IIQ13).

Kris, it is important to note, the ‘end of days’ is not about the end of the world but the return of the land/property of Zion.
My opinion is: Jesus was not claiming to be the Son of God that had to sacrificed for the atonement of sin but instead he was a messenger (Essene?) that the coming of the Son of Man was near.

[beowulf]

@Kris,

I think you answer is indeed found in the DSS.

The Essenes were expecting the Son of Man in the 1st century.

The Essenes looked for the coming of the Son of Man to restore all things during a special Jubilee. This special Jubilee would occur in the first week of the Jubilee that follows the nine Jubilees.

“And the Day of Atonement is the end of the tenth Jubilee, when all the Sons of Light and the men of the lot of Melchizedek will be atoned for. ….” The Heavenly Prince Melchizedek (IIQ13).

I found that in "The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English" by Geza Vermes, pg 501.

Also this, which is not a word for word translation:

"This is the day of salvation concerning which God spoke through Isaiah the prophet, who said; beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of the messenger who proclaims peace, who brings good news, who proclaims salvation, who says to Zion: Your ELOHIM reigns [Isaiah 52:7]. Its interpretation; the mountains are the prophets…and the messenger is the Anointed one of the spirit, concern whom Daniel said, [Until an anointed one, Dan 9:25)].”…The Heavenly Prince Melchizedek (IIQ13).

Kris, it is important to note, the ‘end of days’ is not about the end of the world but the return of the land/property of Zion.
My opinion is: Jesus was not claiming to be the Son of God that had to sacrificed for the atonement of sin but instead he was a messenger (Essene?) that the coming of the Son of Man was near.

Welcome aboard John T.